Do you agree with race realism?

I'm in favor of testing. That's the only way to make a good determination of who knows the material and who doesn't. But holding Education departments to high standards probably requires a holistic approach to reforming our education system.

 

"Race realism" is your word for "racism." I'm totally open to racism provided that you can support it with evidence that shows there are significant biologically-based racial differences beyond culture.

 

Too many relative to what? High school graduation either means some standard has been met or it doesn't. If it doesn't, what is the point of it? If it does, shouldn't the standard be one that is meaningful? IMO if you have 90+% of students graduating high school by age 18, the standard is too low to be meaningful.

So they don't graduate. They can try again. Objective physical reality is not going to be edited to make them feel better about themselves, and it's better that they, their parents, and those who might hire them know the truth about their academic achievement level.

Yes, well, by age 18, it's time they learned the real world has standards, and if you don't meet them, it's no one's problem but yours.

What has already failed is having no universal requirements.

 

If you've read the thread, you know that has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Source?

 

A science is what that community of scientists say it is.

If you can breed with it, it's yours.

You've assumed your assertion is true when you say "genetically determined"... You're looking at an inch and saying it's a mile. The science does not, and will not, support racism.

 

Wrong. Everything is what it is, regardless of what anyone says it is.

What does that even mean?

You either accept the fact of evolution or you don't.

That depends on what you mean by racism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

 

Good grief.

You don't get to rewrite a science. You don't get to touch it with a ten foot pole.

It means we're one species.

This isn't about evolution.

Not so much.

I doubt you've studied evolution:

https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Ev...8476&sprefix=stephen+jay+gould,aps,160&sr=8-6

 

How does this study support your conclusion? This study clearly shows that IQ differences are because of family, cultural, and environmental differences, not genetics.

 

Ahem.

You don't get to rewrite a science. You don't get to touch it with a ten foot pole.

I get to identify scientific facts even when you find them politically inconvenient.

Clear?

Congratulations, Captain Obvious. Anyone in this thread claimed we aren't?

<crickets>

Wrong again. It is very much about evolution, and specifically the woke left's refusal to engage with its inescapable logical implications about race and gender.

BWAHAHHHAAAAHAHAA!!! You cite that absurd and dishonest anti-IQ Marxist clown who claimed the principles of population genetics applied to every species but homo sapiens?? You are embarrassing yourself.

 

Do I have to post the numbers again?

Here, from post #541 in this thread, which you obviously either neglected to read or could not understand:

No, that claim is just baldly false, as the data provided above just flat-out prove. Read post #541. Such results have been found consistently for decades. No amount of evasion or excuse-making can make them go away.

 

they will sell the rice, beans, and fresh veggies to innocent bystanders for cash, welfare recipients do that already with food stamps or 'e b t'.

 

So basically what your source shows is that when black/interracial kids are given to white homes, they have a normal IQ. When they are in black homes, they get below average IQ. Hence, this shows that the environment is the determining factor here.

 

disagree universal requirements are necessary because all of the best businesses are white owned.

if you diversify requirements for example, then you'll have segregated hospitals where the staff are mostly under performing with lower IQ's.

this goes for all other private businesses as well, you need a universal standard that allows white privilege to take its course. women and minorities would still compete, but would have to be properly qualified.

https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...ainful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege

 

Stephen Jay Gould won the Nobel because he was one of the best.

He was a scientist, you are not.

But you are definitely something..

 

He did not win a Nobel. He won various awards for paleontology and popular writing.

He was a paleontologist, writer, and chanter of Marxist drivel, not a psychologist or geneticist.

That's right: honest, intelligent and informed. The Trifecta.

 

No, it most certainly does not. It shows that when black/interracial kids are adopted into white homes, their IQs at age 17 are the same as those of black/interracial kids raised in their biological parents' homes.

They have below average IQ either way, and by age 17 the difference is minuscule.

Whaaa...??

OK, so it turns out you weren't lying: you really just have no idea what the data mean. Sorry for judging you so harshly. You weren't being dishonest; you just don't possess the modest cognitive horsepower needed to understand a table consisting of a dozen numbers. American public high school graduate?

 

See your table below. These non-adopted kids are in white homes. This doesn't factor for the non-adopted kids in non-white homes where it is likely lower.
"Non adopted, two white biological parents -------- 110.5 -- 105.5"

Your table again. Their IQ is 101.5. That is above average.
"Adopted, two white biological parents -------------- 111.5 -- 101.5"

The sample size on this data is really small. I'm seeing 101, 16, 55, 12, and 21 people in each sample. That is a really big margin of error. Another factor is that adopted kids are non-typical and have often gone through severe trauma.

 

Congrats, you finally got something right.

 

"Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism..

After the end of World War II, scientific racism in theory and action was formally denounced, especially in UNESCO's early antiracist statement "The Race Question" (1950): "The biological fact of race and the myth of 'race' should be distinguished. For all practical social purposes 'race' is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth.

Critics argue that such works postulate racist conclusions, such as a genetic connection between race and intelligence, that are unsupported by available evidence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

You are so far out of your depth it's not funny.